P.Sheeba v. The Superintendent Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Sheeba ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Karungal Police Station, Karungal, Kanyakumari District.
3.M.Rajendran 4.Geetha
...Respondents
PRAYER: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and @ r/w 114 CrPC to review the order dated 14.08.2025 made in WPCrl. (MD)No.960 of 2025 on the file of this court to allow the review application.
1/7
For Petitioner : Mr.PF.Ferlin Castro For Respondent : Mr.AS.Abul Kalaam Azad, Nos.1 and 2 Government Advocate For Respondent : Mr.EJ.Daniel Rabinson Nos.3 and 4
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this application to review the order passed by this Court in WP.CRL(MD)No.960 of 2025, dated 14.08.2025.
2.The grievance in the said writ petition is that the complaint of the petitioner dated 06.07.2025 was not entertained by the second respondent Police and was not registered in any register. Therefore, the petitioner with an allegation as against the second respondent that the second respondent is acting in a biased manner, has lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District seeking transfer of the investigation and has filed the above writ petition. In the said writ petition a representation was made on behalf of the second respondent that the petitioner's complaint was 2/7
enquired along with the complaint of the fourth respondent's husband in CSR.No.828 of 2025 and the same was closed. Recording this submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the writ petition was closed with a direction to the respondent Police to furnish a copy of the closure report to the petitioner enabling her to workout her remedy in the manner known to law.
3.This review application has been filed that the complaint of this petitioner was not at all enquired along with the complaint in CSR.No.828 of 2025. The complaint of the fourth respondent's husband was closed on 02.07.2025 whereas the petitioner has lodged a complaint only on 06.07.2025 and based on her complaint, no enquiry has been initiated and therefore, the petitioner has submitted a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District seeking change of investigation and has also filed the above writ petition. However, based on the false representation made by the respondent Police, the earlier petition was closed as if the 3/7
complaint of this petitioner was also enquired and closed along with CSR.No.828 of 2025.
4.In response to this review application, the learned Government Advocate submits that the complaints in CSR Nos.828 of 2025 and 227 of 2026 are pertaining to the jewels of the petitioner's mother. The petitioner's mother was under the custody of her son / 4th respondent's husband. She died after long illness. The complaint of this petitioner is that at the time of death, her mother was having some jewels, which have been taken and handed over to the 4th respondent /daughter-in-law of the deceased, by the 3rd respondent / the petitioner's uncle. The learned Government Advocate further submits that in this regard not less than six complaints have been lodged by the petitioner and all those complaints have been enquired and the same were closed by the respondent police. However, the petitioner has repeatedly lodging the complaint and filed petition even before the Superintendent of Police and also filed this petition.
4/7
5.He further submits that since the complaints of this nature was already enquired and closed by the respondent police and the same was also reported before this court. Even after filing of this review application, the petitioner has filed another complaint on 12.03.2026 on the same set of allegation and it was treated as petition enquiry in CSR No.227 of 2026 and was closed on 14.03.2026.
6.Considering the nature of complaint, the petitioner has to work out her remedy before the appropriate civil forum or by filing a private complaint. Therefore, this court is not inclined entertain this review application. Accordingly, this review application is dismissed.
24.03.2026 NCC: Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes DSK 5/7
To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Karungal Police Station, Karungal, Kanyakumari District.
Copy The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
DSK 24.03.2026 7/7